I know, I know--It's just fiction, a novel. The author's a wacko. And on and on....
But Vince Flynn, for all of his action, violence, thrills, etc., often has some quotations that are right on the money. Try this one on for size: "Is there no level of incompetence that won't be tolerated?" How about this one: "Doesn't anyone in this administration pay taxes?"
Thanks to my buddy Bitt for steering me toward Flynn--and his protagonist Mitch Rapp, although the one I'm reading now has a different hero, with many of the same other characters, from their early days. It's interesting how Flynn has very little good to say about politicians and government appointees and bureaucrats. Are they as self-centered and stupid as he portrays them? He knows them, "up close and personal," better than I do. I was surprised, happily so, to hear my doctor say he reads Flynn, too.
Harlan Coben, esp in the Myron Bolitar series, often has very good quotations and insights in his fiction.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Mid-July Musings
Hot and humid here, very hot and very humid. In fact, K and I agree that it has been more unpleasant, comfort-wise, than at 109 in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago. In fact, I think it's much more unpleasant.
What kind of credibility can Pres Obama have when he comes to Michigan and touts Gov Granholm as "one of the best governors" in the country? C'mon...even state Dems don't believe that. O could have come, done his thing, been pleasant and complimentary, but spare the obviously untrue political malarkey.
One thing that has struck me isn't that 60% of Americans don't approve of what BO has been doing. It's that almost 40% still do! Of course, 40% of the people don't pay taxes at all and another 15% get some sort of gov't freebies, so....
I believe all citizens have the right to vote and should have the right to vote, but it pains me more and more to say it. I wonder--and I'm just wondering, not advocating it--why people who pay no taxes should have the right to vote. After all, what stake is there for them other than voting for people who will continue to make it so they don't pay taxes? That is, voting for people who will continue to make others, not them, pay taxes?
I still don't get the libs' talking points on the Tea Parties. They must be talking points as I've heard the exact same words from different people at different times at different places--the exact same words. "Talking points?" They say, [The Tea Partiers] "have no ideas. They are racists...." Blah, blah, blah. Well, that's a bunch of hooey, malarkey--or worse. Either these libs are blinded by their ideology (And, if they are, why don't they give up their vacations, SUVs, and well above average homes and give their money to whom they think are being treated unfairly? Seems a bit hypocritical to me--OK, more than a bit. Do you think they would even listen to this?), are very stupid, or just aren't paying attention. As I told one a couple weeks ago, "No, [the Tea Partiers] do have ideas. They just aren't the same as yours. That their ideas are different doesn't mean they don't have ideas." Isn't thinking that government has become too big, too intrusive in our lives, an idea? Isn't thinking that gov't should not spend so much money, borrow so much money, an idea? And so on.... I guess if one has a closed mind, even if one is college-educated.... Hey, wait a minute! Aren't most college campuses among the most close-minded places in the country???? Oh, they "prove" how tolerant they are by letting Louis Farrakhan and even anti-Semitic, hate-spewing Islamists talk. But people like William Kristol and Sarah Palin get hooted down, boycotts and sit-ins preventing their presentations. And these are the people being turned out to teach our kids--teach them that only certain people, those whose ideas are in tune with "the anointed" have the right of free speech. Freedom of speech isn't according to ideas that aren't liked by "the anointed." http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2009/12/10/less-free-speech-today-than-in-1964/
I've blogged on this before, but it bears repeating. We give far too many accolades, prizes, awards, memorials, etc. to people who really don't deserve them. I suppose in a way I reflected this about a month ago, when in a bit of a contentious discussion with a teacher, I blurted out, "Stupid people can't be good teachers." Of course, that ended the discussion--and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I meant it and still mean it. By giving awards, medals, etc. to people who don't deserve them, we demean those who really do. After all, if everyone could run a marathon (or a marathon in three hours), what would be the distinction? Where is the reward for hard work, for dedication, not for merely being "concerned," "nice," etc.? Of course, who will stand up and say, "Hey, why is this teacher getting this award? He certainly doesn't deserve it." And, more specifically, if it was me who stood up and said it, we all know what the response would be, don't we? I'd like to thank my fellow teachers for all those 33 years for allowing that to happen.
They, or some of them, did what I heard again last week. "I'll close my classroom door and just teach." The implication is, of course, that teachers will avoid the politics, the stupid programs and policies of administrators, etc. and teach behind the protective doors of their classrooms. well, I suppose that's fine and good, but.... It's silence or passive acquiescence that has allowed the stupid programs and policies, that has allowed inept administrators to institute these things (curricula, giving in on the insane drive toward testing testing testing, no dodge ball or "best friends," etc.), hire equally inept teachers, show no courage or integrity, ignore or merely not even recognize the need for rigor in high quality education, etc. Shame, shame on those who "closed their doors" and allowed this to happen. Again, Pastor Niemoeller: "First they [the Nazis] came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the communists and I wasn't a communist, so I said nothing.... Then, they came for me and there was nobody left to say anything." Ah, history isn't important.
I wonder where they get the nerve, the fortitude to do this. It must be that it works with other professors/instructors or that it worked in high school. I guess.... I had a student who asked if I could raise his/her grade to a C from a D. Now, I labored over whether to give a D or an F (for some unknown reason there isn't a D-)! I could very well have rationalized an F, but a D was given. This student wanted a C so her/his student financial aid wouldn't be jeopardized!!!! This student missed more than a third of the classes, completed about half of the essays, and failed the mid-term and final exams, but did marginally, only marginally, better on the quizzes. Any effort, as admitted by this student (but she/he had reasons, not excuses, but reasons, was lacking. So, he/she wanted you and me to continue to pay for his/her classes even though he/she wasn't trying at all? You got it--and you're paying for them. Another student needed an A to get admitted to the college of her/his choice. She/He earned a solid B, a good grade, but certainly not an A. Could I raise his/her grade to an A ("The other instructors did" or so it was claimed and I have no reason to believe otherwise.) so he/she could go to the college of his/her choice? That she/he didn't deserve to go there, when others do and did, apparently isn't part of the deal. I can't imagine going to one of my profs at AC and asking the same. "Gee, could you all give me As so I can go to Harvard Law?" See the paragraph above for a primer.
Out to read about the Wit and Wisdom of A. Lincoln....
What kind of credibility can Pres Obama have when he comes to Michigan and touts Gov Granholm as "one of the best governors" in the country? C'mon...even state Dems don't believe that. O could have come, done his thing, been pleasant and complimentary, but spare the obviously untrue political malarkey.
One thing that has struck me isn't that 60% of Americans don't approve of what BO has been doing. It's that almost 40% still do! Of course, 40% of the people don't pay taxes at all and another 15% get some sort of gov't freebies, so....
I believe all citizens have the right to vote and should have the right to vote, but it pains me more and more to say it. I wonder--and I'm just wondering, not advocating it--why people who pay no taxes should have the right to vote. After all, what stake is there for them other than voting for people who will continue to make it so they don't pay taxes? That is, voting for people who will continue to make others, not them, pay taxes?
I still don't get the libs' talking points on the Tea Parties. They must be talking points as I've heard the exact same words from different people at different times at different places--the exact same words. "Talking points?" They say, [The Tea Partiers] "have no ideas. They are racists...." Blah, blah, blah. Well, that's a bunch of hooey, malarkey--or worse. Either these libs are blinded by their ideology (And, if they are, why don't they give up their vacations, SUVs, and well above average homes and give their money to whom they think are being treated unfairly? Seems a bit hypocritical to me--OK, more than a bit. Do you think they would even listen to this?), are very stupid, or just aren't paying attention. As I told one a couple weeks ago, "No, [the Tea Partiers] do have ideas. They just aren't the same as yours. That their ideas are different doesn't mean they don't have ideas." Isn't thinking that government has become too big, too intrusive in our lives, an idea? Isn't thinking that gov't should not spend so much money, borrow so much money, an idea? And so on.... I guess if one has a closed mind, even if one is college-educated.... Hey, wait a minute! Aren't most college campuses among the most close-minded places in the country???? Oh, they "prove" how tolerant they are by letting Louis Farrakhan and even anti-Semitic, hate-spewing Islamists talk. But people like William Kristol and Sarah Palin get hooted down, boycotts and sit-ins preventing their presentations. And these are the people being turned out to teach our kids--teach them that only certain people, those whose ideas are in tune with "the anointed" have the right of free speech. Freedom of speech isn't according to ideas that aren't liked by "the anointed." http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2009/12/10/less-free-speech-today-than-in-1964/
I've blogged on this before, but it bears repeating. We give far too many accolades, prizes, awards, memorials, etc. to people who really don't deserve them. I suppose in a way I reflected this about a month ago, when in a bit of a contentious discussion with a teacher, I blurted out, "Stupid people can't be good teachers." Of course, that ended the discussion--and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I meant it and still mean it. By giving awards, medals, etc. to people who don't deserve them, we demean those who really do. After all, if everyone could run a marathon (or a marathon in three hours), what would be the distinction? Where is the reward for hard work, for dedication, not for merely being "concerned," "nice," etc.? Of course, who will stand up and say, "Hey, why is this teacher getting this award? He certainly doesn't deserve it." And, more specifically, if it was me who stood up and said it, we all know what the response would be, don't we? I'd like to thank my fellow teachers for all those 33 years for allowing that to happen.
They, or some of them, did what I heard again last week. "I'll close my classroom door and just teach." The implication is, of course, that teachers will avoid the politics, the stupid programs and policies of administrators, etc. and teach behind the protective doors of their classrooms. well, I suppose that's fine and good, but.... It's silence or passive acquiescence that has allowed the stupid programs and policies, that has allowed inept administrators to institute these things (curricula, giving in on the insane drive toward testing testing testing, no dodge ball or "best friends," etc.), hire equally inept teachers, show no courage or integrity, ignore or merely not even recognize the need for rigor in high quality education, etc. Shame, shame on those who "closed their doors" and allowed this to happen. Again, Pastor Niemoeller: "First they [the Nazis] came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the communists and I wasn't a communist, so I said nothing.... Then, they came for me and there was nobody left to say anything." Ah, history isn't important.
I wonder where they get the nerve, the fortitude to do this. It must be that it works with other professors/instructors or that it worked in high school. I guess.... I had a student who asked if I could raise his/her grade to a C from a D. Now, I labored over whether to give a D or an F (for some unknown reason there isn't a D-)! I could very well have rationalized an F, but a D was given. This student wanted a C so her/his student financial aid wouldn't be jeopardized!!!! This student missed more than a third of the classes, completed about half of the essays, and failed the mid-term and final exams, but did marginally, only marginally, better on the quizzes. Any effort, as admitted by this student (but she/he had reasons, not excuses, but reasons, was lacking. So, he/she wanted you and me to continue to pay for his/her classes even though he/she wasn't trying at all? You got it--and you're paying for them. Another student needed an A to get admitted to the college of her/his choice. She/He earned a solid B, a good grade, but certainly not an A. Could I raise his/her grade to an A ("The other instructors did" or so it was claimed and I have no reason to believe otherwise.) so he/she could go to the college of his/her choice? That she/he didn't deserve to go there, when others do and did, apparently isn't part of the deal. I can't imagine going to one of my profs at AC and asking the same. "Gee, could you all give me As so I can go to Harvard Law?" See the paragraph above for a primer.
Out to read about the Wit and Wisdom of A. Lincoln....
Friday, July 9, 2010
Just Some Musings...
OK, what's this about some soccer tournament, The World Cup? All right, I know about it. In fact, there were a lot of folks wearing colored national soccer jerseys when we were in Las Vegas. It seemed, though, that all of them spoke English with accents. C'mon, the US squeaks by that powerhouse of everything Algeria and then loses to Ghana. I know some of these athletes are very talented. But did one ever think what the US could do with someone like Kobe Bryant in goal? Matt suggested this. Let's see, the guy is about 6'9", quick and agile as a waterbug, etc. Who could score on him? Take other NBA and NFL athletes and start them in soccer and guess what? Yep, my guess is "It's Miller Time" with The World Cup. But, in the end, I don't care either way. So what if "the rest of the world...."
BTW, why are we so concerned about what "the rest of the world" thinks, does, etc.? That is, why are we, well, at least some of our leaders, so-called of course, and intellectuals, again so-called of course, saying, "But what about what 'the rest of the world' thinks...?" Maybe we should be concerned with their thoughts about us, esp. "those" who treat their women the ways they do, who strap bombs to their own kids and grandkids to blow up others' kids and grandkids, who allow a handful of ruling family members to hoard their nations' wealth, etc. The list goes on and on and....
Does anyone really care who that LaBron Harris guy plays for? Well, I for one do not, not in the least. And how much money is he getting? I wonder if I will read or hear the word "greedy" in all of this. Why is it that I think not?
The guy who murdered that 2-year old and then buried him under 400 lbs of concrete.... I have a few suggestions on what to do with him. None of them are pleasant and none of them are quick. You can save those excuses, "Oh, but he had a bad childhood" or whatever else, for someone who cares....
BTW, why are those who decry any nasty punishment for murderous monsters like this guy the same folks who are abnormally silent about the treatment of women, criminals, etc. in their favorite "the rest of the world" countries? I wonder if they can spell "hypocrites."
Why is the ACLU so forceful in defending the rights of people to use swear words, yet, like the above, so very silent about the federal government's usurpation of our individual rights? For instance, where is the ACLU (certainly not in court!) when ObamaCare requires us to purchase health insurance, and of a particular kind?
Oh, I have more, but no time right now. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow, again, if I have time.
BTW, why are we so concerned about what "the rest of the world" thinks, does, etc.? That is, why are we, well, at least some of our leaders, so-called of course, and intellectuals, again so-called of course, saying, "But what about what 'the rest of the world' thinks...?" Maybe we should be concerned with their thoughts about us, esp. "those" who treat their women the ways they do, who strap bombs to their own kids and grandkids to blow up others' kids and grandkids, who allow a handful of ruling family members to hoard their nations' wealth, etc. The list goes on and on and....
Does anyone really care who that LaBron Harris guy plays for? Well, I for one do not, not in the least. And how much money is he getting? I wonder if I will read or hear the word "greedy" in all of this. Why is it that I think not?
The guy who murdered that 2-year old and then buried him under 400 lbs of concrete.... I have a few suggestions on what to do with him. None of them are pleasant and none of them are quick. You can save those excuses, "Oh, but he had a bad childhood" or whatever else, for someone who cares....
BTW, why are those who decry any nasty punishment for murderous monsters like this guy the same folks who are abnormally silent about the treatment of women, criminals, etc. in their favorite "the rest of the world" countries? I wonder if they can spell "hypocrites."
Why is the ACLU so forceful in defending the rights of people to use swear words, yet, like the above, so very silent about the federal government's usurpation of our individual rights? For instance, where is the ACLU (certainly not in court!) when ObamaCare requires us to purchase health insurance, and of a particular kind?
Oh, I have more, but no time right now. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow, again, if I have time.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Walter Williams
Hey, didn't I just blog about this a week or two ago????
Here's Walter Williams in a column this AM: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/30/where_best_to_be_poor/page/2
He has some statistics to support this. Amazing, but you don't think anyone in the MSM would report like this, do you? How "mean-spirited!"
Here's Walter Williams in a column this AM: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/30/where_best_to_be_poor/page/2
He has some statistics to support this. Amazing, but you don't think anyone in the MSM would report like this, do you? How "mean-spirited!"
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Just Asking
Is education the only profession that doesn't take advantage of its best people, of the people with the best backgrounds/resumes? I suppose not, but it sure seems there are a lot of "not-so-bright" people making a lot of education decisions that seem awfully stupid, not conducive to quality education.
The Wealthy?
Why, when I was signing in here, did I find myself singing the old Paul Anka song, "I'm Just a Lonely Boy?"
Is this relevant or am I off-base? People are talking about tax-breaks for the rich, the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, greed, etc. But I have questions.
OK, I guess I accept that the rich are getting richer. (But with the financial, banking, and real estate, among others, bubbles bursting, is that really true? Can I believe the media and/or the government? Hmmm....) But, also, are the poor really getting richer, too? Perhaps the last year or so has been rough, but do truly "poor people" have cell phones, big screen televisions, video game systems, etc.? Do their kids wear the latest NBA, NFL, and Hollywood fashions? Before people jump all over me, I understand the very bottom of the economic ladder has it tough, very tough. Single moms, those laid-off through no fault of their own, etc., have my sympathies and prayers for better times. But don't the studies show that 97% or something of the people have cell phones, a great percentage than that have televisions, etc.? What about computers and the Play Stations and other video game systems? Does that, then, suggest only about 3% or 5% of the people are really poor? If so, then why do the media and "do-gooders" always cite much higher figures? Is there a standard percentage, say, the bottom 25%, who are always determined to be "poor," just because they are the bottom 25%? But, again, if they have cell phones, video systems, flat screen televisions, etc., who cares? What do I care if the top 10% of the US earns more this year than last as long as I have what I need and want? Let them make as much as they want or can, I guess.
And, I'm back on that "greed" thing. Why is it greedy for some folks to make as much as they can, even if it's an ungodly amount, but not for others who don't make as much? Is "greed" also measured by figures? If one makes more than a set amount and makes or wants to make more, is he greedy, while one who doesn't reach that level, but makes or wants to make more, isn't greedy? Why are the athletes, hippy-rock singers, Hollywood-types, hey, even doctors never cited for being greedy? Yet, the bankers, investors, "big oil," etc. always labeled "greedy?" Why is Exxon or BP or whatever big oil company, with a profit margin of under 5% called "greedy," but the local gas station owner who charges 9 cents a gallon more for credit card purchases instead of cash isn't? Granted, there might be some paperwork involved, even waiting a bit for delivery of the money. But why did this just start? Why do some stations still have the same prices? Why are some charging three or four cents a gallon for charging and others 9 cents or more? Isn't that greedy?
I'm glad Izzo is staying at MSU. But I have to laugh at some of the callers to radio stations, newspaper columnists, etc. OK, he turned down $10 million to go to Cleveland. That's a lot of money! But so is $5 million!!!! And that's what he makes in E. Lansing. Is that a sacrifice? Of course, it is. But it's still $5 million. I'm not saying he's not worth it or shouldn't get it. No, not at all. He should be able to get whatever he can get. But isn't taking $5 million for coaching a game just a bit "greedy?" Hey, Hey, of course, it isn't--this is sports! To put this in a bit of perspective, at dinner with 6 others a few weeks ago, someone brought up that an NFL QB is unhappy that he's not the highest paid, that he is threatening to hold out unless his contract is renegotiated, etc. Well, he's not the highest paid, but he still, according to the guys, makes $15 million a year!!!! $15 million!!!!!! (Yeah, yeah, I've heard the lame, "But our careers are so short, we have to make it while we can." What happened to that college education you received for free? What about investing/saving some of your money? How about getting a real job when you're done playing? Phooey!) Well, one of the math guys at the table confirmed what I was thinking, $15 million in a year is more than we made in our entire lives--all of us sitting at the table combined!!!! Again, I'm not upset that this guy makes that money--he demanded it and someone agreed to it, so more power to him. It's the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness our culture and people exhibit toward "greed."
Is this relevant or am I off-base? People are talking about tax-breaks for the rich, the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, greed, etc. But I have questions.
OK, I guess I accept that the rich are getting richer. (But with the financial, banking, and real estate, among others, bubbles bursting, is that really true? Can I believe the media and/or the government? Hmmm....) But, also, are the poor really getting richer, too? Perhaps the last year or so has been rough, but do truly "poor people" have cell phones, big screen televisions, video game systems, etc.? Do their kids wear the latest NBA, NFL, and Hollywood fashions? Before people jump all over me, I understand the very bottom of the economic ladder has it tough, very tough. Single moms, those laid-off through no fault of their own, etc., have my sympathies and prayers for better times. But don't the studies show that 97% or something of the people have cell phones, a great percentage than that have televisions, etc.? What about computers and the Play Stations and other video game systems? Does that, then, suggest only about 3% or 5% of the people are really poor? If so, then why do the media and "do-gooders" always cite much higher figures? Is there a standard percentage, say, the bottom 25%, who are always determined to be "poor," just because they are the bottom 25%? But, again, if they have cell phones, video systems, flat screen televisions, etc., who cares? What do I care if the top 10% of the US earns more this year than last as long as I have what I need and want? Let them make as much as they want or can, I guess.
And, I'm back on that "greed" thing. Why is it greedy for some folks to make as much as they can, even if it's an ungodly amount, but not for others who don't make as much? Is "greed" also measured by figures? If one makes more than a set amount and makes or wants to make more, is he greedy, while one who doesn't reach that level, but makes or wants to make more, isn't greedy? Why are the athletes, hippy-rock singers, Hollywood-types, hey, even doctors never cited for being greedy? Yet, the bankers, investors, "big oil," etc. always labeled "greedy?" Why is Exxon or BP or whatever big oil company, with a profit margin of under 5% called "greedy," but the local gas station owner who charges 9 cents a gallon more for credit card purchases instead of cash isn't? Granted, there might be some paperwork involved, even waiting a bit for delivery of the money. But why did this just start? Why do some stations still have the same prices? Why are some charging three or four cents a gallon for charging and others 9 cents or more? Isn't that greedy?
I'm glad Izzo is staying at MSU. But I have to laugh at some of the callers to radio stations, newspaper columnists, etc. OK, he turned down $10 million to go to Cleveland. That's a lot of money! But so is $5 million!!!! And that's what he makes in E. Lansing. Is that a sacrifice? Of course, it is. But it's still $5 million. I'm not saying he's not worth it or shouldn't get it. No, not at all. He should be able to get whatever he can get. But isn't taking $5 million for coaching a game just a bit "greedy?" Hey, Hey, of course, it isn't--this is sports! To put this in a bit of perspective, at dinner with 6 others a few weeks ago, someone brought up that an NFL QB is unhappy that he's not the highest paid, that he is threatening to hold out unless his contract is renegotiated, etc. Well, he's not the highest paid, but he still, according to the guys, makes $15 million a year!!!! $15 million!!!!!! (Yeah, yeah, I've heard the lame, "But our careers are so short, we have to make it while we can." What happened to that college education you received for free? What about investing/saving some of your money? How about getting a real job when you're done playing? Phooey!) Well, one of the math guys at the table confirmed what I was thinking, $15 million in a year is more than we made in our entire lives--all of us sitting at the table combined!!!! Again, I'm not upset that this guy makes that money--he demanded it and someone agreed to it, so more power to him. It's the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness our culture and people exhibit toward "greed."
Saturday, June 19, 2010
I Have Returned!
Did I just originate that phrase? Maybe someone before used it, maybe? Ha Ha....
Just a quick note:
I've spent quite a bit of time the past two or three weeks with teachers, college, high school, and elementary all. I am struck by two things: one, how universal the dislike and lack of respect shown toward administrators and, two, how many teachers seem to turn their backs on stopping the idiocy.
It's no secret of my disdain for administrators--I don't hide it. And, I suppose, it's no surprise that teachers feel toward them as teachers do; after all, administrators deserve it due to their lack of honesty, integrity, courage, and, in case, intelligence. So, I'm not stunned. But how many choose, "to just close my classroom door and teach" or some other such comment has irritated me. How can these people then follow that with "we're there for the kids" or "we're doing what's best for the kids," etc.? Again, I make no secret that I think that's a bunch of hooey. Teachers are not there "for the kids." But that's an issue for another day (and the one or two people who might actually read this are welcome to reply, positively or negatively--even telling me I'm full of dog doo-doo).
How can they just sit there and let all this crap happen in the schools, just close their eyes to it, while either "just closing the door" or "accepting the crap" while complaining away from school and administrators and then say "We're here for the kids?" More hooey! I told one teacher the other night, in a discussion about another's competence (I said "lousy teacher," the other said "very good teacher"), "Stupid people can't be good teachers." I mean it and I also think teachers who lack courage and integrity can't be very good either. At the very least, what about standards, rigor, etc.? But, again, fodder for another post.
What I am reminded of here, yet again, is Pastor Niemoller: "First they came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Communists and I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the...and I wasn't a..., so I said nothing. Then they came after me and there was nobody left to say anything." Certainly not to trivialize the history behind this, not at all, but apply this to education--curriculum, hiring, standards, and much, much more.
Out....
Just a quick note:
I've spent quite a bit of time the past two or three weeks with teachers, college, high school, and elementary all. I am struck by two things: one, how universal the dislike and lack of respect shown toward administrators and, two, how many teachers seem to turn their backs on stopping the idiocy.
It's no secret of my disdain for administrators--I don't hide it. And, I suppose, it's no surprise that teachers feel toward them as teachers do; after all, administrators deserve it due to their lack of honesty, integrity, courage, and, in case, intelligence. So, I'm not stunned. But how many choose, "to just close my classroom door and teach" or some other such comment has irritated me. How can these people then follow that with "we're there for the kids" or "we're doing what's best for the kids," etc.? Again, I make no secret that I think that's a bunch of hooey. Teachers are not there "for the kids." But that's an issue for another day (and the one or two people who might actually read this are welcome to reply, positively or negatively--even telling me I'm full of dog doo-doo).
How can they just sit there and let all this crap happen in the schools, just close their eyes to it, while either "just closing the door" or "accepting the crap" while complaining away from school and administrators and then say "We're here for the kids?" More hooey! I told one teacher the other night, in a discussion about another's competence (I said "lousy teacher," the other said "very good teacher"), "Stupid people can't be good teachers." I mean it and I also think teachers who lack courage and integrity can't be very good either. At the very least, what about standards, rigor, etc.? But, again, fodder for another post.
What I am reminded of here, yet again, is Pastor Niemoller: "First they came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Communists and I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the...and I wasn't a..., so I said nothing. Then they came after me and there was nobody left to say anything." Certainly not to trivialize the history behind this, not at all, but apply this to education--curriculum, hiring, standards, and much, much more.
Out....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
